Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truthiness (3rd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I myself didn't believe it when this word made it into Merriam-Webster, but we can't control what our sources choose to make notable. —Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 2007-04-17 00:33Z

Truthiness[edit]

I have decided to stick my neck out on this article. It is actually is a repost (it kept on getting reposted, and eventually forgotten about). But why should one word in a TV show get its own article. This is the tried and true definition of WP:FANCRUFT. Delete. Part Deux 22:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong/Speedy Keep. Because this one word was more notable in 2006 than Anna Nicole Smith was (she obviously made a splash in 2007). Certainly there's no reason to list all the words that pop up at the start of the show, but Truthiness, with the huge amount of attention this word got (check the scope of the citations) is definitely of note. Deleting something just because it's been deleted before is not an argument that the current article should be canned, and should be counted as irrelevant to the article as it stands. The article is certainly too long and informed to be merged back into the already very long Stephen Colbert article. This reads like you want to set up a set of rules so that should a word or short phrase be notable, it can be deleted, because it's just one word, which would be a really bad precedent. Thespian 22:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

>Editing to add: I also think you need to look into WP:CONS, specifically, "Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome." If the article keeps coming back because people want it, with many people editing it, then arguing it and nominating it for a third time, is ignoring consensus. The initial deletion happened before the word became so popular. The second was withdrawn. The situation is completely different at this time, and this is now inappropriate with the amount of external coverage.Thespian 22:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If it was just one word on a TV show, it would indeed be worthy of deletion, but the article is well cited and establishes notability. The term was selected as the Merriam-Webster 2006 Word of the Year and the American Dialect Society 2005 Word of the Year, and has been used on news shows and in the New York Times. That's more than sufficient for an article. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Very widely reported by many news outlets; the ADS and the MW references in particular raise this to a very high level of notability. bikeable (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep With all due respect to the nominator (whose name I have purposely not looked at), are you shitting me? Look at the sources! How many highly-regarded papers and TV news programs need to discuss something at length for it to be acceptable? Whatever the number, I'm sure this article meets and exceeds it. The word is obviously incredibly notable, and there are far more than enough reliable sources to back that up. Jeez, there's a reason articles make Good Article status- not just because editors have spent many hours bringing it up to snuff, but because there are enough sources to make an excellent article possible. -- Kicking222 22:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it's good enough for the American Dialect Society and for Merriam-Webster, it's good enough for us. I would assume that those two organizations have a more rigorous review process than we do. Also, the article was illustrated as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiWorld. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I'll WP:AGF that Part Deux was not actually trying to cause a disruption with this nomination, so that would take it out of the realm of speedy keep. Nonetheless, the nomination does seem to simply be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, since identifying the term as nothing more than fancruft (i.e. non-notable) is utterly absurd given the sources and citations detailed in the article. Mwelch 23:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Its a WP:GA...A good article! How can we possibly delete an article that the community has rated worth of high respect... it has 42 references...it was the American Dialect Society word of the year... the Merriam-Webster word of the year. WP:FANCRUFT doesn't apply because Truthiness is notable. 42 sources and you say it is the true definition of fancruft. I too will WP:AGF... but you almost made me not. MrMacMan^Talk 00:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.